Navy Vet: 80 Hours of Training = Common Sense Gun Control

1. I think VanDiver meant 80 hours of training for dumb-ass half-witted sea cooks who slept on their stomachs one time too many when they were deployed.

   • The firearm training I had in the navy was a joke. My training started when I was 6 yrs old when my Dad gave me my first BB gun. After that my sgl shot .22 reduced the squirrel population. when I went into the navy I could out shoot any gunners mate in the navy.

   • Reminds me of joke from the video game Company of heroes

     “You are paid to fight, not dig trenches with your face!”

     • That’s called a low crawl or a skull drag… and sometimes that is EXACTLY what you are being paid to do.

2. I am a US Army Vet so I’ve completed my 80 hours of firearms training. On a slightly related topic, if someone registers for the draft are they not part of a well regulated militia? If someone is/was part of any of the armed services are they not part of a well regulated militia? While it is highly unlikely, one of the things I was told when I left the Army was that I could be recalled to active duty at any time. If that’s the case then I’m still part of a well regulated militia (as the antis want to define the term) and my 2A rights shall not be infringed. Just sayin….

   • Well, as per the english language the first half of the second amendment (a well regulated militia) is simply a partial explanation as to why the right of the people (meaning every last one of them) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Criminals, and now the mentally ill basically have sub-human rights, but we live with that for the better of society.
     This does not mean one has to actively participate in a militia to keep and bear arms. Since militias traditionally only assemble in times of civil unrest (and are composed of civilians) I could make a compelling argument that the National Guard is not and never has been a militia.

     • Limitations on the rights exercised by criminals and the mentally ill are not a compromise of the Constitution. They’re consistent with the Constitution, which provides that one may be deprived of life, liberty, and/or property, within due process of law. After all, we fine, institutionalize, incarcerate or execute people every day, and that in itself is perfectly constitutional.

       Now, whether a particular application of due process is itself valid, is another issue, and rightly a constitutional one at that. However, the general notion of limitations per se is irrefutably constitutional.

       Beyond that, whether a particular limitation is useful or wise or cost effective or merit worthy by any other standard, is a political issue, not a constitutional issue. Political issues are to be decided by the people’s elected representatives, or directly in the case of referenda, and let the foolishness fall where it may.

       • While you may be right when the said criminals and mentally ill are confined under the protection and guardianship of the state, but after that is done and they are free, continuing to deny them their constitutionally protected rights amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. If you paid your dues to the society and are released back into it then you should enjoy all the rights of free men. Otherwise you should be placed under someones guardianship and as such you are not free. The BOR doesn’t come with a footnote.

       • @AnonInWA: +1000. Spot on!

     • The prefatory statement or “Militia clause” is simply a stated reason WHY the newly formed, constitutional , Federal Government would not want to infringe on the enumerated and guaranteed, pre-existing “right of the people to keep and bear Arms”.
       The militia, drawn from the armed populace, was the primary defense force of both the newly independent states and the Union — that “unum” state formed “e pluribus”. The 2nd Amendment was a bond of trust between the people and that constitutional Federal Government. The people were bound to protect the constitutionally empowered Government, and enforce its just laws. The Federal Government was in turn required to adhere to the limitations of its powers, and not become a tyranny. If it did so, it would face the ultimate check on its usurpation of the Constitution, the people with guns in their hands.

       • Calling the populace at large the well-regulated (trained, similarly equipped) militia is a fallacy if epic proportions.
         The well-regulated militia created under powers of Congress was the primary source of government power against the.people, thus its mention.
         The people were rightfully wary of any armed.goverment controlled forces, and wanted means to neutralize such a threat.

       • The militia could not very well be used against the people if it was composed of the majority of the people themselves. The “select militia” idea, to (supposedly) spare the majority of men the burden of military training, and provide a well trained militia of a smaller size, was fortunately defeated.

         • The well-regulated militia is now called the national guard. They still fall under the powers of Congress to put down insurrections and enforce laws.
           The well-regulated militia was never the people at large.

   • Those eligible for draft, 17-45 males, are part of the unorganized militia

     Those drafted are part of the “select militia” or “organized militia”. Technically, active law enforcement and military are “organized militia” since the only active duty we were intended to have was a small staff, to train the militia, and the navy.

     Veterans? they are part of the unorganized militia alongside all able bodied males 17-45.

     Well regulated simply means “in proper working order”, as in, properly-equipped. 30 round magazines are conducive to this, as are other semi-automatics.

     • While you for the most part correct, well-regulated means much more than you suggest. A well-regulated militia is one that fits the description found in the constitution, under powers of Congress.

     • (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
       (b) The classes of the militia are—
       (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
       (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

       (a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
       (1) The Vice President.
       (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
       (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
       (4) Customhouse clerks.
       (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
       (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
       (7) Pilots on navigable waters.
       (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
       (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

       Law enforcement and military are not the organized militia. If you’re going to talk about the militia, you should at least read the code first.

       • One cannot be unorganized and still be well-regulated. Training, discipkine and leadership are hallmarks of being well- regulated. Like the militia in powers of Congress….that Congress is empowered to use against the people.

       • I was briefly a member of the “unorganized militia” of the United States. That status ceased upon my enlistment in the Marine Corps. I was then a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, equivalent to the “standing army” terminology at the Founding, until my retirement (though still subject to recall to active duty) as a Reservist.
         The notation under a (3) that I was considered a member of the militia, when I was not on active duty seems mighty strange to me. The DOD owned my butt, even when I retired, as much as they owned the butt of the rifle they issued me. My true status was to remain as affiliated with the Armed Forces of the United States from that original enlistment onward.

         • Marines are not part of a standing army, they are part of tbe Navy.
           You are wrong again.

       • Paul G. —
         “I was then a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, EQUIVALENT TO THE “STANDING ARMY” TERMINOLOGY AT THE FOUNDING . . . ”

         Perhaps you don’t think that both Sailors and Marines, as well as Soldiers and Airmen are under the DOD. Or perhaps you fail to grasp the concept that “standing army” referred to a permanent military force under the control of the Federal Government, which is what the “Armed Forces of the United States” is today.

         • I refer to facts, not your inane speculation. Powers of Congress, read it!
           The Navy was different from the Army. Standing armies (the army) were being frowned upon, and hence limited to 2 year appropriations. The Navy, on the other hand was quite different.
           Maybe you should actually know and understand the subject matter before saying stupid things, The Marines are part of the Navy.

       • Paul G.—

         “The Navy was different from the Army.”

         Yes, at the founding.

         TODAY, they are both permanent national defense organizations — along with the Air Force and Marine Corps, under the Department of Defense, i.e. Federal authority as a “standing army”, as the Founders would have expressed it, or “Armed Forces of the United States” as we say today.
         You are either intentionally missing that point, or you are so lacking in reading comprehension that I have no hope of gaining any benefit from any further discussion with you.

         I repeat —

         “I was then a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, EQUIVALENT TO THE “STANDING ARMY” TERMINOLOGY AT THE FOUNDING . . . ”

         Perhaps you don’t think that both Sailors and Marines, as well as Soldiers and Airmen are under the DOD. Or perhaps you fail to grasp the concept that “standing army” referred to a permanent military force under the control of the Federal Government, which is what the “Armed Forces of the United States” is today.

         You should learn to read before making a fool of yourself.

         • At the founding, and still.
           Point me to the amendment making your statement true…..what,there isn’t one?! Oops.
           Your bad.
           The Navy has always been part of our defenses. But they are not the Army. The Marines are part of the Navy. The Air Force was originally part of the Army, until 1947. They are all part of the armed forces, but not part of the Army. Standing armies refer to the army. not to naval forces. Did you read anything?
           The Constitution has not changed, and your interpretations are still wrong.
           I am neither missing a point nor lacking in comprehension, it appears I am just arguing with a buffoon.
           I know my subject matter. You take liberties with the subject to try and force it to fit your imagination. That just doesn’t pass muster.

       • “At the founding, and still.”

         I have no need to refer to any “amendment” to defend the truth in that statement. It is your obligation to provide an “amendment” that proves the Navy, and the Marine Corps, are not under the DOD, and part of the “Armed Forces of the United States”, or a permanent armed force under the control of the Federal Government, which would be termed a “standing army” by the Founders.

         I say again:

         “TODAY, they [Army and Navy] are both permanent national defense organizations — along with the Air Force and Marine Corps, under the Department of Defense, i.e. Federal authority as a “standing army”, as the Founders would have expressed it, or “Armed Forces of the United States” as we say today.
         You are either intentionally missing that point, or you are so lacking in reading comprehension that I have no hope of gaining any benefit from any further discussion with you.”

         I repeat —

         “I was then a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, EQUIVALENT TO THE “STANDING ARMY” TERMINOLOGY AT THE FOUNDING . . . ”

         Perhaps you don’t think that both Sailors and Marines, as well as Soldiers and Airmen are under the DOD. Or perhaps you fail to grasp the concept that “standing army” referred to a permanent military force under the control of the Federal Government, which is what the “Armed Forces of the United States” is today.

         You should learn to read before making a fool of yourself.

         You were derelict in your history of the various branches of the Armed Forces. (OOPS! We now should refer to them as the “United States Uniformed Services” according to my Form 2.) You left out the interesting nature and history of the Coast Guard.

         Your divergence into this distraction is over. I do not think that you are as stupid as you make yourself out to be. I can only conclude that you are just another troll, perhaps a bit more clever than most, who seeks argument as an excuse to see if he can display how clever he is, control the discussion by directing it into minor sub-topics, and confuse rather than enlighten.
         I entertain such creatures only so long as they entertain me. You have become tedious.

         Trip-trap . . .trip-trap . . . trip-trap.

         • The Navy was always part of our defense organizations, are you too dense to understand that? That does not equate them with a standing army. The founders were quite content to have naval defense forces and no standing armies. They are not the same, never were. Standing navy yes, standing army, no. The navy is still not part of the army. But BOTH are part of the armed/uniformed/defense forces, always have been. That we now have standing armies does not change that the navy is not a standing army.
           Ok, let me make it easy…..men and women are both human beings, but a woman is not a man. OK? Both are part of mankind, but a woman is not a man. Get it? Navy, is an armed force, always was, but not part of the army.
           The only one coming off as stupid in our discussion is you. The coast guard doesn’t need mention when we are discussing the army and navy, why must you try and deflect everything? Trying to hide your lack of knowledge with distraction?

     • The Oxford English Dictionary supports your statement about the meaning and usage of “well regulated” as “properly functioning” in the time frame of the 2nd Amendment.

       1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

       1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

       1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

       1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

       1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

       1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

       Language changes over time. For example, Daniel Webster defined “browse” only in terms of an animal eating, not in terms of a person reading. Shakespeare has Gertrude describe Hamlet as “fat”, not meaning our common modern sense of the word — “corpulent”, but “sweaty”.
       I have come across some very foolish comments from those who don’t seem to realize the need to understand “well regulated” in the way it was used at the time the 2nd Amendment was written.
       I have even found some so totally ignorant of their native English, they attempt to have “well regulated” time-travel over 200 years into the future, where it gains the modern connotation of “lots of rules, regulations, and restrictions”, certainly not the case when it was written. Not only do they wish “well regulated” to time-travel, but it somehow uproots itself from the prefatory “A well regulated Militia . . .” and travels through space as well. They think its modern connotations are to be applied not to describe “Militia”, but “the right of the people . . .”, or “Arms”, in the operative statement of the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms”.

       • Well-regulated has not changed so much as you think. Regulated meant the same back then, as in to be standardized, kept regular. From the root word, regular, obviously. Regular, as in similar arms, equipment, training, and leadership. It did not refer to “regulations”, as in laws. Such laws, or regulations, seek to do the same thing, make things regular. Much like a well-regulated time piece, which is not properly functioning, but functioning with regulation, i.e. one second, minute, and hour is the same interval as others. A regulated clock keeps proper time. The intervals are standardized, uniform, etc…
         Now militia, on the other hand, had many more meanings a few centuries back. But then, you don’t want to hear that, it might burst more bubbles.

       • “Well-regulated has not changed so much as you think.”

         The OED has refuted you.

         No modern connotations of “Lots of rules, regulations, and restrictions” present there.

         • Not at all. Cherry picking your definitions is bad practice, and yet even your cherry picking alludes to properly calibrated, PROPER working order, not just functioning.
           Lets add to it, again from the powers of Congress, so we know just what militia was actually mentioned in the Constitution.
           “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
           “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” You know, working regularly, trained, and working cohesively.
           By the way, the root word regular, has not changed one iota in meaning. It may have expanded some in scope, bit has not changed.
           Middle English, from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare, from Latin regula rule
           First Known Use: 15th century
           To rule doesn’t always imply rules or statutes, but standardization, as in a 12 inch ruler or a steel rule gives consistent, standardized measurements.
           Oh, yeah, the Navy stuff……
           http://www.history.navy.mil/biblio/biblio4/biblio4a.htm

           The infant Republic’s military weakness further convinced American nationalists of the necessity of adopting a new constitution that would increase the authority of the national government, particularly by giving it the power of taxation. The issue of naval power, itself, produced little debate during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The frame of government proposed by the convention gave Congress power to raise money to “provide and maintain a navy,” which implies a permanent naval establishment, as constrasted with the power to “raise and support armies,” which suggests that armies would exist as temporary expedients. Whereas the Constitution restricted army appropriations to two years, it left the term of naval appropriations unlimited. Navies were not thought to pose the same threat to political liberty as did standing armies. After all, as Thomas Jefferson had once observed, “a naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both”;2 or, as James Madison would argue in favor of ratification of the Constitution, a navy could “never be turned by a perfidious government against our liberties.”3

           So, Marines are not part of any standing army, Got it now?

       • LOL Hiya “Pat”!

         “Cherry picking your definitions is bad practice.”

         I agree. That was the entire entry for “well-regulated” from the OED — no “cherry-picking” there.

         What I have done is present evidence from the OED of the meaning and usage of the ADJECTIVAL PHRASE “well regulated”, contemporaneous with the writing of the 2nd Amendment — how it was used and understood by the people of that time. That is hardly a matter of “cherry-picking”.
         What you have done is continue your errors, attempting to examine the parts of the phrase instead of the whole, and attempting to rationalize that error by offering an irrelevant etymology of one of those parts, the word “regulate”.
         I’m sure you understand the term “cherry-picking”. If not, then recourse to your online Mirriam-Webster will explain its meaning. That entry will also tell you that the expression was first used in 1965. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would do if someone from our time appeared before them and used that term. Would they think it was about harvesting cherries? You may not have language time-travel at your will.

         If you were to apply your “logic” to an examination of what “the meaning SHOULD BE” of “lightning bug”, you could possibly determine that it meant a “computer programming flaw caused by a discharge of atmospheric static electricity”.
         Or, as the poster “We Are So Screwed” pointed out, your method might just as well determine “pretty fly” meant an attractive insect.

         BTW, We don’t have any more “privateers” in our Navy. Catch on yet?

         • You tried to color what the words intended, unsuccessfully. I also gave you the ROOT of the word, and its origins and meanings contemporaneous with those times. Not innuendo. Actually all the examples you cited refer to control, whether self-restraint or government or some other source induces that control. Funny too, the constitution itself mentions one militia, and it being trained, armed and disciplined, its leadership is defined, and it is controlled at least in part by Congress. Yup, that would be them.
           Privateeers have nothing to do with the Navy being an armed force (it always was one, in case you missed that, even in the founding…duh) but not being associated with the Army or standing armies. The cavalry doesn’t ride horses anymore either, big deal. Non sequiturs both. If your ego is bruised because you were never part of a standing army, aww.
           You keep trying to redefine terms. The well-regulated militia was defined in the powers of Congress. It was not some mish-mash force of citizens. That is the point exactly. The well-regulated militia does not apply to the citizens, the existence of such a militia is cited as a reason for the people to be armed.

           Our well-regulated militia is a regulated body, it is today called the National Guard. The people serving in it have their arms, as issued, subject to rules and regulations regarding their use. The rest of us may be unorganized militia but certainly not well-regulated.
           The people are who the second amendment concerns. The second amendment does nothing to create a militia, just as the first amendment does not create a press. Both are about the rights of the individual, to avoid oppression by government. The Bill of Rights is not about those things, it is about personal rights. Any doubts about whether they are personal or “people’s” rights should be assuaged by the very fact that we are a republic, not a democracy. The republic values individual rights whereas the democracy is about the majority, the individual’s will is subservient to the majority in the democracy.

           The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word “regulate,” which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

           1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
           2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

           3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

           4) To put in good order.

           [obsolete sense]
           b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

           1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

           We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

           The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
           — The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
           http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

           The general populace, well-regulated? Fat chance. Never was intended, either. WTF is “Pat:”? Are you delirious?

           I am still waiting for that amendment making the Navy part of the Army. The Navy was always part of the armed forces, and never part of a standing Army. Regardless your fantasies.

       • You’re not “Pat”? Sorry, I mistook you for a troll I ran into who used that screen-name. You are very like him. The same public facade presented — just a little problem with the RKBA because you have to be in the “well regulated” (by the Federal Government) militia for the 2nd Amendment to apply. Like him, you also attempt to rationalize your interpretation of the PHRASE “well regulated” by ignoring the evidence of the usage recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary, and substitute an entomology of the WORD “regulate”. That’s “pretty fly” for a troll like you. (I suppose you think you can explain the phrase “pretty fly” by an entomology of “fly”.)
         You also share the same tactics; that of feigned inability to comprehend the simplest of ideas, the same pretended shock at the other guy’s inability to see the majesty of your erudition and clarity of logic, the same deflection and diversion into minor sub-topics, the same projection of your own pretended stupidity on your opponent, the same ad hominem insults meant to further disrupt any real discussion, and of course, when you fail to muster an intelligent response — change the subject.
         I’m sorry if I mistook you for “Pat”, but please understand that you trolls are so much alike you may as well be clones. You must all work off the same script.
         This should be the point when you again declare victory over your misguided, delusional, mentally unbalanced, or just plain stupid “opponent”. Then you will be free to trot off to hide under some other bridge, under some other name.

         DNFTT

         • So sorry to disappoint you, of course you seem incapable of any comprehension whatsoever. I never intoned that one need be a member of a well-regulated militia to access the 2A. Quite the opposite in fact.
           I see that the comprehension problems are on your end.
           Remember, when you gave what you called relevant examples of what “well-regulated” means, I gave one from a founder himself that completely contradicted your allegations. One can indeed find numerous so-called expert commentaries on the internet, you must be quite the internet commando. I wouldn’t call you an idiot, just uneducated, possibly incapable of any real higher level though capabilities. I could be wrong, but your problems just in this thread imply otherwise.

         • Here’s a hint….when you are occupied with “clones” of “trolls”, it is probably not them that are the problem. Either pull your cranium out of your rectum, or just admit you are a dumfuk.

   • Just remember, if you assume that “well-regulated” means what the grabbers seem to think it means (I don’t but let’s go down this tortuous path for a moment), it’s the militia that’s “well-regulated” not the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

3. What is it with (some) veterans and authoritarian political views? I haven’t met one in person like that (all were great people) but for some reason a few people keep coming out of service like this.

   • They were like that before they went in…

     • Word. We called them lifers and aszholes.

       • Hey, come on, I was lifer [21y=9m] and after retiring all I wanted to do was grow a beard and leave everyone else the hell alone and BE LEFT ALONE – now I practice my own brand of civil disobedience daily and dam does it feel great ilmao! Live free and die with a smoking gun in your hand[s] and a bunch o empty mags around you!

         but that’s just me.

       • Drew. Meanings change. In my day the “lifers” were the by the book pricks that were useless anywhere but a parade ground. The old timers we respected we never referred to as “lifers”.

         We said we had 2 wars to fight. The 1 against the enemy and the 1 against the officers.

     • Agreed. The military doesn’t make them this way. They were already a$$holes. They are the ones that think they are better than everyone else and that wearing a uniform (any uniform!) in any capacity (any capacity!) makes them experts in all things weapons and tactics.

       • USUALLY they go work for the TSA, though, not the Navy…

     • Bingo. And they seem to find their way into nice administrative and training positions, not unlike people of similar persuasion do in higher education.

   • Hero wanna be important types like this abound. Stupidity knows no limits.

   • I actually made this point in the comment thread, but out of all the services, I tend to find Navy personnel the most vocal anti-2A (not saying most are, just saying from ones that approached me or I read columns from). I think it’s that “still stuck on the boat mentality”, where everything has to be locked down and tightly controlled. I dunno, I was never a sailor.

4. “Even if I could find someone with whom training would be worthwhile (e.g., David Kenik a.k.a., the Rabbi), I could not afford to take eighty hours out of my work and parenting schedule – never mind the cost.” — Robert Farago

   That is exactly what gun grabbers want. Their “standards” have nothing to do with “safety” and everything to do with preventing as many people as possible from keeping and bearing arms.

   • I’m sorry, but there is an unfortunate reality that 40-80 hours of training does nothing for, and that is that you’ve either got it, or you don’t.

     Those lame-asses that join the military and require multiple rounds of remedial and repeat training to qualify, those are the kind of people this weapons instructor thinks he will see everywhere. In reality, those are the people that would likely never own a gun in real life. They see no desire in learning the skill, thus it is exponentially harder to train for it, thus taking for ever to train. Those without desire for the skill are without desire for the tool.

     Someone that wants to carry a concealed weapon, or use a firearm in a self-defense capacity, is going to have the mindset and purpose for training, and that will push them to improve themselves far quicker than someone who isn’t. The people that purchase a weapon, but always let it sit completely unloaded in a closet, or obtain a CCW but never carry, ever, are the ones that will NOT be likely to use their gun anyway, so what harm will they do by having not having exhaustively long training requirements? Those that have a ready plan for a home invasion, carry every day all day, those are the ones that are most likely to use a firearm in defense of self or others, and are likely to seek out their own training.

     • What he wrote!

5. ” after licensing gun owners after every five years….”
   Please tell me when I had to start getting a license to excersize any God given, natural, or constitutional right?
   As far as training, I’m all for training but who is to say who is qualified as a trainer? Also, I don’t think x amount of hours amounts to much when the adrenaline starts to pump if you don’t keep up your training.
   Mr. Vandiver, just because you served does not give you authority over any aspect of my life. I served our country also, and I don’t push my opinions onto you

6. I’ve been through innumerable hours of government training (9 years active duty and then another 4 working for the military industrial complex) dear God why would I want more of it? Why would anyone think that government training is any sort of reasonable standard to aspire to?
   Ignoring the completely unconstitutional requirement that this brings up, how does anyone think this is a good idea?

7. Article was published a couple of days ago. Even at the Daily Bestiality, the comments were running well against this wannabe dictator (he no doubt thinks he would be supremely qualified for the position of “gun-training czar”). Ya’ll did catch that he wants the gubmint to do that required training, right? So the gubmint-employee instructor can “flunk” anybody he thinks might be a little too free-thinking or whatever.

8. Here’s a question… Do police forces get 80 hours of weapons training before being allowed to carry? How many rounds would one expect to fire in 80 hours of training?

   80 hours of training, presumably paid, is yet another attempt to keep self-protection out of the hands of those without the means to pay for it. You might as well put a poll tax or property requirement in place if you want to keep the poor down.

   • Well, I Can say from personal experience that the USAF provided roughly 6 hours of training once every 4 years, for the vast majority of Airmen . (Between 1996-2000).

     I was in a deplorable comm unit, so our M-16 was once every year. M9 was once every 4.

     • Ok, I just saw the autocorrect… While appropriate & funny thanks iphone- that’s supposed to be a “deployable ” comm unit… Though we certainly were deplorable at times.

     • I think you meant to say “deployable”, but you may also be correct using “deplorable”. /sarc

     • I’m going to assume that deplorable = deployable. But who knows?

       Thanks for the laugh!

       EDIT: dang, I’m getting slow; two other posts/updates in the time it took me to type this!

9. When I got back into shooting, I took a basic pistol class. About four hours, almost all on the range. Once the basic safety rules were taught, it was hands on shooting. However, you were constantly checked to be sure you were following correct practices.
   A year later I took a two hour private lesson. I wanted to have my bad habits corrected.
   In no way would I believe a 40 hour course (it’s “80 hours” her but only “40 hours” in the linked article) would not be almost entirely sitting in a classroom. It would be deadly boring.
   Van Diver would need to explain exactly and specifically how EACH hour would be used. Just mandating “40 hours” fails the logic and smell test.

10. 80 hrs?!?!

    What hell about handling a gun takes 80 hrs to learn?

    You could get a degree from 80 hrs on a classroom.

    • “You could get a degree from 80 hrs on a classroom.”

      I hope you are engaging in hyperbole here. If not, you’re thinking of a diploma mill. You needed 120 credit hours to graduate my university–or more depending on your major, mine was 136–and that meant 120 hours (taken about 15 per semester) times 16 (weeks per semester). That’s a total fo 1920 hours (admittedly of 50 minutes each, not 60) spent actually warming a chair in a classroom. And this did not include time taken doing homework, studying for exams, and of course a “lab” gave you one credit-hour but was oftentimes as much work as a three credit hour class.

      • Yes, it was in jest.

11. Why anyone thinks that government regulated = well regulated is beyond me.

    • Well, there is at least one thing the US government actually does well.

      They don’t do it perfectly.

      But they do it arguably the best in the world.

      The air traffic control system.

      They’re it is… The one thing they do well.

12. Stupidity this profound should be studied COLD…….on a morgue slab.

13. Good luck with shall not be infringed. Too many Amerikans are content (if not downright proud) of the perks they get for having licenses to carry concealed.

    • Says the guy that would never put a <16" barrel on a non NFA registered rifle.

      • Touché.

      • Those who would probably aren’t stupid enough to take your bait and brag about it here. 😉

    • Your statement is sadly accurate.

14. Yes my gun collection could hurt a “child,” and adding another gun could hurt it more. Here’s how…

    The “child” breaks into my house and in the process of trying to get into my gun safe, it falls on him. (Actually it can’t, it’s well-anchored. But for the sake of argument…)

    More guns in my safe = more kilos smoosking the would-be “child” thief into my floor.

    But honestly, that’s about the only way I can see how adding another gun to my collection would incrementally threaten a child. And even then we’re talking about a “child” in the MDA propaganda sense, not a child in the sense of a human perhaps too young to ought to know better.

    • The blood and other goo would be bad for your safe’s paint job. So I am glad you have it bolted down.

15. Well, Mr. VanDiver, let me give your red-herring of a question a more serious answer than it deserves.

    My right to have as many firearms as I want without anyone knowing about it is PRECISELY as important as the lives of my children — because guns are the ultimate defensive tools for peaceful people like me. I’d die for my family…but having firearms at my disposal gives me better options.

    Who knows, if the worst happens, maybe some recalcitrant civil libertarian like me will protect your children, too. Or would you rather have them die while we both wait for the government’s permission?

16. His caliber of argumentation reminds me of the rudimentary, but developing, level of proficiency typical of an eighth grader, or possibly a precocious sixth grader. Out of a middle-aged, supposed professional, however, it is profound only in its degree of inanity.

17. ” I could not afford to take eighty hours out of my work and parenting schedule”

    That’s the idea, Robert. That’s the idea.
    ____________

    “after licensing gun owners every five years”

    Yep. Right after you license people to practice speaking, assembly, religion. Maybe get some training before you can practice those as well, Mr. VanDiver. What? Having unlicensed people assemble, speak, and practice religion must be bad for the children, no?

    ______________
    “This training should be done by the government to ensure consistency and quality control …”

    Because the ‘government’ is so very good at ensuring its own consistency and quality control that it should…? Yes, more bureaucracy and .gov control. Because that won’t become yet another regulatory nightmare.

    Damn that pesky Constitution. It messes everything up.

    /sarcasm

    • I thought the “government” delegated training standards (e.g CHP) to the NRA – the primary purpose of which _is_ training.

18. Ok, I am going to call BS on this guy being a Firearms Instructor. I just looked up his Bio and all of the Navy experience listed therein points to him being a Fire Controlman, which is an enlisted rate. The only small arms weapons instructors I have encountered in the Navy are either Gunner’s Mates or Master-at-Arms. He was a weapons instructor of sorts, but the weapons we are talking about here are the ship’s weapon systems (i.e. missiles, and deck guns).

    • Alright, now I know it is BS. I just found a profile of him that listed all of his achievements and NEC’s (Navy Enlisted Codes…kind of like job certifications) and NEC 0812 Small Arms Marksmanship Instructor is not one them. He was an E-6 when he separated as well…at 12 years, which means he most likely got out because he wasn’t going to make E-7. Maybe something is missing and he did do some firearms instruction, but I seriously doubt it. I’m sure he used small arms a little bit at one point or another when he was standing watch, but Navy small arms training is epic-ally pathetic. His profile does show a Navy Police badge, but none of his assignments match up with that duty.

      • He probably helped maintain the admin database of the qualification program and helped set up targets on the flight deck. I’ve seen my fair share of people shooting for watch qualifications that would need more than 80 hours too. Hell we had a gal on my first ship almost hit dead center of the target after she skipped a round off the deck. It was the only round she fired before the Senior Chief separated her from the 1911. This guy seems to be just a turd using bogus qualifications to back up a political stance his parents taught him. The badge you saw was probably Duty MAA qualification. I had one too on duty days and I was an Electronics Technician.

      • A 12 year FC1…I’m guessing he was either turned down for re-enlistment (PTS) or sent home in one of the selective reduction boards in the 2011-2013 timeframe. I don’t recall offhand if FC was one of the overmanned rates.

        It is entirely possible he was a 0812 as an FC, depending on the type of ships he was on. But nonetheless, it would be unlikely he was a small arms instructor beyond a collateral duty instructor. He may have been a “weapons” instructor, but it would be in the 20mm(CIWS) and above or missiles.

        As someone else mentioned, the service didn’t make this guy. He was like this before he came in. As a vet, nothing irritates me more than vets using their “vet” status to attempt establish credibility to something that has no bearing on their service.

    • This was going to be my comment: IF this guy is claiming SEAL training, or some sort of Special Operations experience, his credentials need to be checked. The guys at “This Ain’t Hell” have caught hundreds of posers claiming SO experience they never had. In some cases, firearms instructors have claimed SEAL status when they weren’t even in the military!

      Validate his claims. If they are false, slam him for Stolen Valor. Thus ends any validity to his argument.

19. The first paragraph say’s it all.

20. California requires 16 hours, half of which is spent in the classroom teaching basic California firearms law and the principles of justified self-defense, the other half is at least theoretically on the range. The training is rudimentary–in my area it is usually 200 rounds, for some it is only 100. D.C.’s new law requires 18 hours–only two of which are range time. what you are going to spend two eight hours in a classroom doing is bond my imagination. I don’t know who is going to be running around for 40 hours or more doing range training–as an older guy, I can assure you it won’t be me. So I guess that means this guy thinks that old people shouldn’t own firearms, right?

21. 60 years ago, at age 13, I had to take a short class in firearm safety and show I could shoot a rifle to get my California hunting license, so basic training has been around for a long time. I think learning rules of safety, and basic legal ramifications and responsibilities are important to expanding the acceptance of guns by the general public, and especially handguns.

    Mr. VanDiver’s suggested requirements are elitist, wildly excessive and fits into the gun control logic.

22. Umm, no. I’m a Navy veteran, qualified repeatedly with firearms while in the service and certified afterward. Unless this person is speaking about people being certified to BUILD firearms or teach others, there’s just not that much a person HAS to know to safely handle a firearm. I’d definitely be interested in seeing the 80-hour course a person just HAS to take to safely handle firearm. I guaran-f*cking-tee you fine folks that the average 19-YO standing topside watch on some submarine or surface ship does NOT have anywhere close to 80 hours of instruction in how to handle firearms. Period.

    • It’s more like 4, 3 of which were an extended lunch break.

23. Tactically. There’s that word, or a variation of it again. Next to caliber wars the whole tactical meme is the most useless discussion there is in the gun world. I guess zombies had to be replaced with something.

    Safe gun handling is the only real requirement, imho, that matters. If you can carry, load and unload and handle your chosen weapon without shooting yourself or someone else accidentally, you’re good to go.

24. Only if we can also issue licenses for opining publicly.

25. Most military members don’t get 80 hours of training before hitting the sand and he knows it. They might get 3 or 4 days and that’s it. I bet cops don’t either.
    And if course the bad guys don’t, but they tool up anyway.

26. Why stop at 40… 80… 120… Slippery slope indeed.

    • Yep.

      Must pass all tests…I mean, must pass all tests with a perfect score.

      Must keep all shots within the 8-ring…I mean, 9-ring…I mean, 10-ring.

      Target will be hung at 7 yards…I mean, 15 yards…, no, no, that’s not right, it was changed to 50 yards, says so right here.

      GREASE that hillside! Whoosh!

27. “This training should be done by the government to ensure consistency and quality”

    Riiiiight. So why is it that untrained civilians currently use their firearms properly more consistently than government trained police officers already? And judging by some of the stories I’ve read here about firearms handling witnessed in basic training and on military bases, untrained civilians seem to outperform many trained soldiers already as well.

28. If I volunteer to take 120 hours, can I be NFA-approved for the duration? No tax stamp requirement, post-86 weapons are A-OK? After all, I will have been professionally trained to the same level as those others allowed access!

29. More training = more safe

    How about making the 80 hours a highschool graduation requirement?
    Everyone would be safe and familiar with guns and the time built in to the curriculum

    • Hell it should be part of an 8th grade civics class already.

30. Thank GOD no one “asked” this dbag. If he wants to claim to be an authority on schooling he better go back for some because the only survivable portion of that kind of training is how it makes you run your mouth about how “expert” you are

    If he wants to quit crapping on his NAVY cred, he can “bl_w a herd of goats to get his self esteem back” then we can talk (we won’t, but we ‘could’).

    If safety is that critical, if it is so damn critical that you find that you just can’t feel safe until there are no guns, then you better just end-yourself because there is something Terribly, terribly, irrevocably wrong and dangerous with you stupid.

    If you can’t rid the rest of the universe of “guns” before you come for mine, then it should occur to you that you should not. If it doesn’t, then you should just end yourself stupid because there is something Terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly, irrevocably wrong and dangerous with you stupid.
    ,

31. VanDiver needs 80 hours or more in training to understand the oath he took when he joined the Navy…

32. Well, if he was advocating that all high schools across the country teach 40-80 hours of instruction regarding firearms – including plenty of range time in those hours – I might support that.

    Somehow, I doubt that’s what he wants.

33. This schmuck doesn’t know his aszhole from his elbow. The military takes an 18 year old off the street and gives them all the boom boom gear they can carry or handle in two months nowhere in those two months is there EIGHTY HOURS of common sense training. Personally training is great but, in the military only MPs or combat units get more training in combat arms and weapons. My brother did 20 in the Navy he only had to qualify 4 times in firearms. No eighty hours worth of training. This shyster trying to make business for himself.

34. Admiral Barnacle: Where the hell have you been, sailor?
    VanDiver: Traaaaaaaining, sir!
    Sailors: Training, sir!
    Barnacle: What kind of training, son?
    VanDiver: Naaaaaaavy training, sir!

    • “Lighten up, Francis”

      Ah, Stripes. One of my favorite movies.

      Came out about the time I was enlisting. In the movie, they make fun of several TV commercials used to advertise for new enlistees; I remember those commercials well.

      • Huffing and puffing during a grueling march..

        “What a great place, it’s a great place to start…”

        More huffing and puffing…

35. It’s 16 expensive hours for CC inIllinois . And that is too dang much. I guarantee I’m a better shot than the vast majority of applicants(and tactical) 🙂

36. After licensing all voters, with a renewal every five years; …. requiring 40 hours of government training before they can vote on local issues. If they want to vote in national elections, then we should require 80 hours of training run by the government to insure quality and consistency. Let’s get this proposed and see how many people’s heads explode. If it’s ok for one right, then it’s obviously alright for the rest of them.

37. I challenge VanDiver to explain how training in the military or
    LE exceeds what “civilians” can take. As a “civilian” I have
    received more training and a vastly higher level of practice
    than 90% of the military let alone police. (FYI: Mr. VanDiver
    there are a good many “civilian” instructors training those
    Navy SEALs and SWAT teams.) I have several buddies in
    the Marines that love coming over on leave, simply
    because we shoot more in a weekend then they do in 6
    months of active duty. So who exactly is more trained and
    more importantly experienced; the guys who might have
    to qualify ever quarter, tops; or the guy spending every
    weekend at the local range getting tips from local instructors.

    I realize he ‘only’ wants this common-sense training for those
    wanting a CC license. But if Mr. VanDiver can’t explain these
    differences than why should we be forced to take training
    that may actually exceed requirements for either LE or even
    much of the military.

38. And people wonder why I don’t trust soldiers…

    • Hey Mr. Mensa that is a sailorboy not a soldier.

      Pretty obvious he is not of the SEAL end of the don’t ask/don’t tell special friends afloat branch.

      And you’re an idiot.

      • A brilliant argument!

39. Here I thought all along that the hundreds and hundreds of hours spent with dad and my grandfather, shooting rifles, trap and carrying while hunting as a kid WAS training…

    Silly me. Glad I’ve got Mr. VanDiver here to point out the err of my ways over the past 35 years! Crikey, someone could have gotten hurt!

40. The bottom line is that whenever a person chooses to exercise their Natural, Civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear Arms for any purpose, they also take on the responsibility and accountability for all the consequences that may be produced by their exercise of the right. They are accountable to their peers and to the State, as well as to themselves. It is not VanDiver or the State’s business to dictate the level of competency required of the individual, but it is the State’s business to provide and administrate the means of enforcing on behalf of one’s peers the accountability the individual accepts when exercising the right.

    There is a dividing line between a free society and a totalitarian society that accepts the risk that “sh*t happens” is better than the Government telling you how many sheets of toilet paper you must use to wipe your butt, and that defines whether you are a free person or a state thrall. VanDiver does not understand that and thereby makes himself a Big Government stooge and an adversary to people who prefer freedom.

41. The Military is a cross section of society. Unfortunately there is quite a few budding statists among the ranks. It seems the Navy may have more than it’s share. A sad little 1st Class Petty Officer who had something in his record that kept him from selection as a Chief would be my guess. Maybe his chain of command recognized the proto-tyrant for what he was.

42. “This training should be done by the government to ensure consistency and quality control”

    The only thing the government is consistent about is its lack of quality control and consistency.

    The only person in this room qualified to handle this weapon is me. *Shoots self in foot*

    Yeah, I’ll pass on that training, thanks.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ufT_6Kgy0

43. The pair in Ferguson that had the “accident” where the boyfriend rear ends a car because his girlfriend is waving a loaded pistol around obviously had no firearms training.

    How do you protect our rights and have responsible and safe gun ownership?

    It seems you can’t go to the local shop get a piece and think you’ll handle it properly in a stressful situation without any instruction. Some folk didn’t grow up in a household where this respect was taught.

    So how do we balance freedom with good instruction?

    • So how do we balance freedom with good instruction?

      It was balanced long ago in this nation. See:

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      The balance was determined and agreed to be, shall not be infringed.

    • “So how do we balance freedom with good instruction?”

      The same way we teach automobile driving, sex ed, etc.

      The 4 rules in elementary school.

      Mandatory firearms handling and safety instruction in High School.

      That will be actual “Gun Safety”.

44. I think everyone is missing the greatness of his idea. Just like I feel that the right to vote or speak their kind is inherently far too dangerous for many to wield. Just imagine the types of individuals that could be elected or what damage could be done if people could speak their minds.

    I propose this common sense measure- the people must passed 80 hours of political study and sensitivity training before allowing them the ability to speak freely or to vote. I think this should be renewed every 5 years. Think of our children’s safety, please.

    • Multitudes of future voters are already getting literal years of statist indoctrination, err training, in mandatory public education centers.

45. I’ve put over 15000 rounds down range. Does that count? At what point am I qualified?

    To the liberal mind: I’ll never be qualified.

46. Firearms training is common sense, so is reading your voters pamphlet, thinking before you speak and reading the Bible before lecturing on it, but common sense isn’t necessary to exercise their civil rights.

47. And yet you can’t carry on base. Why do you think that is? It’s because government doesn’t trust you and any hurdle they can put between you and your rights they will do it.

48. Excellent piece, RF and I agree 100%. Thank you for the following quote and for including a link to the definition of pellucid. 🙂 As a disabled single father of four, I can attest to how much of a burden artificial costs mandated by government on the RKBA are. It was extremely difficult to scrape together the money to renew a license to exercise a right that I had freely done without license for my entire adult life prior. I have seen far to many impoverished individuals have to choose between either breaking the law to reasonably exercise their right to keep and bear arms or exercise the right in a legal manner that is far from reasonable for them. Most simply give up and don’t bear arms at all.

    never mind the cost. Imagine a low-income American’s dilemma.

49. I had way less than 40, not to mention 80, hours of training for my M16 and M9 *combined* when I was in.

    Fvck this guy.

50. “This training should be done by the government to ensure consistency and quality control and should be covered by the tax on ammunition”

    OR, you could give gun owners tax write offs for purchasing a fire safe and/or training.

    Government is simply unable to provide a consistent basis for firearms training, and what exactly will this consistent training do? what is the end goal? to lower homicide rates? to lower accident rates?

51. I think it brilliant.

    80 hours of training for what is a relatively simple machine…. brilliant!

    But think about it. A full 80 hours of training for something like this, something so relatively simple as a firearm? I am thinking for something as complex as casting a vote you would have to have a minimum of 400 hours of training. I mean think about it…. how many different political parties and how many different issues within each political party and then all the amendments and ordinances and who knows what else there could be at the local level.

    And then think about how complex the right of freedom from religion is? There are something like 140 major religions out there and then each of those has a good number of sub-divisions and sects…. that is going to take at least a full year of training before you can have that. And at least six months of follow up training every five years when your license expires.

    I can’t believe we don’t already have these common sense laws in place already! What kind of backwards nation are we?

52. New York City cops get two full weeks of firearm and tactical training. We all know how well they can shoot, and know the law. Just ask their latest unarmed victim in the news.

53. “Shall not be infringed.” The last four words of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution are pellucid: the right to keep and bear arms is a no-go area for government regulation. Any government regulation. Because all government regulation is an infringement on Americans’ gun rights.

    Amen, Mr. Farago. How did Americans ever let government go so far in infringing on our rights? Many of our states recognize that we do have a right to openly carry firearms. The mere act of concealing that same firearm does not in any way justify the government requiring a license, a tax and training to exercise a very important Constitutional right.

    80 hours of training? My god. We don’t even require that much training to get a drivers license, and driving a car is considered a privilege, not a right. Any American who begins driving at 15 1/2, and drives on a daily basis into old age has a far greater chance of injuring him or herself, or another, in a traffic accident than by using a firearm.

    Again, though, firearms are not a privilege, they’re a fundamental right. A right that “shall not be infringed.”

    • Aye.

54. I think people should be required to pass a test on current events and civics before being allowed to vote. Uninformed voters are doing more damage to this country than poorly trained firearms owners.

55. 40 hours of instruction is absurd and would cost a bundle, and this would be the hurdle required for someone to buy a $100 .22 or a cheap $200 shotgun? Absolutely insane.

56. As an active duty United States naval officer, I’m sickened the the comments of this navy veteran. Perhaps this former sailor should stick to what he knows instead of opining about imposing an 80 hour training sentence on law abiding citizens. Should we also be forced to take college speaking courses before we peacefully assemble to protest this nonsense if proposed? Love how he insists that the “government” administer the training, because you know, they don’t screw up anything (healthcare, social security, warrantless spying on Americans, etc., etc.).

    V/r,

    An angry 20 year naval officer

57. hey shipmate…..go f%$# yourself.

58. I still giggle when I think about my M60 certification in the Army. I sure hope we didn’t hurt anybody on the other side of that distant Hill.

59. Unsurprising. The Navy is totally obsessed with giving hours upon hours of boring classroom training using PowerPoint slides. ORM, SAPR, CMEO, AWARE, ADAMS, SLC, GMTs, NKOs, Holiday Standdown, 100 Days of Summer, Driving for Life, TIPA, CSADD, Diversity, and every other class in how to use your brain.

    No doubt this schmuck is just looking for some way to get back at the world for all those hours listening to exhaustive examples of how to employ the steps of Operational Risk Management.

60. The people who need this type and amount of hours or training are our local police officers.. I had the horror today to be at the range breaking in my sons new AR and just enjoying a cool afternoon when a few local LEO’s from our town took the spot on the range next too us.. To say their marksmanship was poor would be an understatement.. I was glad they were there to practice but I must say I fear for anybody who actually relies on them to protect and serve them from the bad guys.. I hate to talk bad about these guys because they are good people, but at the same time I must admit I was shocked at the lack of skill they possessed with a glock of all pistols….

61. It just seems that a lot of military gun control freaks seem to come out of the Navy or the other services higher officer corps. Actually, a lot of former pro gun service members I have met were actually ground combat and immediate support troops. Just my experience. At any rate my Dad was actually highly trained in infantry weapons ( much more so than the Navy guy as he was a Staff Sergeant in the Philippines) and taught me how to use small arms.

62. The Anti’s love redefining the English language so they can then declare that the 2A only gives the government the right to own guns. Why? Because they have redefined “militia” to mean the national guard which is control by the state and federal government.
    Therefore the position of the Antis is the same as Mexico’s. Only the government and criminals can have guns. And we all know how well that is working out in Mexico.
    Imagine how much worse the urban areas like LA, Chicago, and NYC would be if there was zero legal gun ownership?
    Antis are on the same side as organized crime.

    • The 2a has nothing to do with arming the well- regulated militia. The well-regulated militia is the gov’s enforcers….read the constitution. The people’s right is to be armed as a deterrent to misuse of that militia against them. History shows it a prudent idea.

63. The only “common sense” gun measure I can think of would be something along the lines of:
    “You will be held responsible for your own actions.”

    Do you feel comfortable with your current level of firearm competence? Great! Do you feel that you need some training to help you become more familiar with firearms? Take it! But whether you have a piece of paper saying you took X hours of training or not, your actions are your responsibility.

64. Reminds me of when the government said you could keep growing marijuana if you got a permit then they never handed out any permits, thus elimination all US made BioDiesel. Never let the government impose a regulation because when they do it just makes things worse and takes decades to fix. Banning black voters, prohibition, banning marijuana, should I go on?

65. He judges others by the self doubting dimwit that he is himself.

66. I don’t think “quality and consistency” have ever been a part of government standard operating procedure.

67. I’m ashamed to live in the same world with someone that stupid. “Look at me! I am so SLY! I have figured out how to twist logic and torture words to disarm my fellow citizens! For no reason whatsoever! Am I cool or what?”

68. Hey, how about 80 hours of American History an d Principles of Free Enterprise in order to VOTE? I think that’s a jim dandy idea … then so many stupid liberals would never get elected by jerkoffs that know nothing about anything.

69. There is no amount of required training that is reasonable. Such a thing cannot legitimately be required to exercise a fundamental right. If it were, then literacy tests for voting would be constitutional, and the fact that they are not is settled law.

70. Amazing this guys took an Oath to defend the Constitution–the same one I took–but dollars to donuts, he never read it, or the other documents (Federalist Papers, etc…) –and on the slim chance he did, he clearly didn’t understand it. That makes any public servant VERY, VERY dangerous.

    SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
    Molon Labe
    No Fort Sumters
    Qui tacet consentit
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges
    Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

71. apparently the sailor had no idea what Oath he took and supposedly promised to uphold/defend.

    govt employees should be required to take a 100%-passing written, NON-multiple choice Constitution test, and be required to put all non-income cashflow related declared assets into an escrow for the duration of the elected term, and should they violate their oath, should forfeit, and arrested pending trial, IN jail.

72. “If you feel, like the fringe gun lobby does, that my 6 year-old son’s life is less important than your right to own whatever firearm and ammunition you want, then say that.”

    Thanks, you’ve managed to imply that I am a threat to your children, a felon, or both, and you just started the second paragraph. Then you go on to suggest an untenable level of training that would make it difficult for even people of normal means to legally own firearms and make sure that the government can find all the rest. Because that worked out so WELL in the end when Goebbels sold the idea last time, and when the Klansmen sold it the time before that.

73. I trained on my own in order to be able to shoot expert. Training in the Army isn’t enough to maintain proficiency. That said, untrained people protect themselves daily without issue. Should an 80 year old woman have to train for 80 hours to own a gun? He’ll no. This guy is an idiot.

74. the enemies of freedom always smiling their asses off for the camera….in snazzy suits…

75. No problem with people being trained as everyone starts out knowing nothing about guns. No one is born with that knowledge. I think it’s stupid when people think that our rights have no limits. Even Freedom of speech has limits. Folks are just being silly when they go to extremes to prove a point. When I was in the military I wanted whoever had my back know what the hell end of the gun to use and how not to shoot himself and others except the enemy.

    • That is an absurd comparison. Rights enumerated in the BoR have any limitations enumerated within them.
      There is no prior restraint regarding the first amendment, thus your comparison fails miserably. Being held responsible for one’s words, or use of a weapon, does not limit one’s right to speak or be armed.
      The concept of personal responsibility for those actions reinforces that it is prudent to be trained and kniowing, but does not mandate it. It becomes a case where ignorance of the law could be a serious detriment.

Comments are closed.